Friday, May 30, 2014

I came across this video while browsing around on Facebook today & it really rubbed me the wrong way. It pissed me off so much that I felt the need to drop some knowledge on that ass. This one goes out to you, Mr. Feuerstein. You seriously need to read a fucking book besides the one that tells you slavery & rape are both okay.

Look, I'm not here to call anyone stupid, idiotic or moronic for believing in God; I used to be a believer myself. Actually, the more intelligent someone is, the easier it is for them to come up with clever & creative ways to justify their irrational beliefs. The main thing that makes me scratch my head about this is the same types of arguments and/or excuses would never be used in favor of anything else in life. I never hear a fundamentalist Christian or YEC (Young Earth Creationist) who obsesses over the whole "you didn't observe it happen" argument also try to claim that people can never be convicted of a crime unless the act of committing that crime is actually observed. I'm sure everyone would agree that it's certainly possible to determine the guilt or innocence of a person based on empirical evidence alone. I don't need to actually see a person walking down the beach to know that someone was there before me; that's what all the footprints tell me. I don't need to physically see an animal ransacking my garbage before I'm able to reasonably conclude that's what happened. We all use a scientific approach in every other facet of life except for when it comes to anything involving religion.

It's just a theory

Whenever someone uses the argument "It's just a theory!" all I really hear is, "I fail to comprehend the basic tenants of science & I also don't know shit about its respective terminology". Allow me to explain in detail the difference between scientific theory & the common, everyday use of the of the term "theory"...

Scientific Theory

Theory

A comprehensive explanation regarding some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of observable, testable and/or quantifiable empirical evidence.

An idea or notion.

Scientific theories are what every hypothesis hopes to one day become. There is simply nothing higher in terms of systematic, scientific explanations.

Well, then how come theories never graduate to become laws?

Theories & laws are two completely separate things. While theories describe why something occurs, laws simply explain what is happening based on observation. For example, gravity is both a law & a theory. It's a physical phenomenon that's blatantly obvious to anyone with a fully functional brain (this pen will fall if I let go of it). Isaac Newton could easily use the Law of Gravity to predict the behavior of a dropped object, yet, he still couldn't explain exactly why this type of thing actually happened. Loosely worded, his hypothesis (which later became known as the Newtonian Theory of Gravitation) stated, "Two things always attract in direct proportion of their masses and in inverse proportion of the square of the distance between them.". If you still choose to use the argument, "it's just a theory" then I cordially invite you to climb to the top of the nearest building & swan dive into a lake of asphalt. That'll definitely show all of those smarty-pants scientists who the real fool is.

Physical laws cannot be disproved; they just are what they are - descriptions. Theories can certainly be proven wrong, however, they remain valid until refuted. A hypothesis is merely an idea that attempts to explain why something happens or has happened & is has lowest form of credibility (if any at all). Just think of a theory as a reputable accepted hypothesis. While the terms "hypothesis", "theory" & "law" are applicably dependent on one another, they represent very distinct ideas that aren't interchangeable. If everyone would take the time to memorize what these terms actually mean then I'll finally be able to stop face-palming every time some neanderthal decides to chime in on a conversation he/she has no business being a part of in the first place.

I don't know what science textbook this guy was reading or what gypsy he's been listening to, but his understanding concerning the laws of thermodynamics is far too presumptuous & way off base. These are laws (note the plural form) that define fundamental physical quantities (temperature, energy & entropy) & characterize all thermodynamic systems in physics. There are 4 main laws - zeroeth, first, second & third - not just one.Zeroeth Law:When two systems are sitting in equilibrium with a third system, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other.
First Law:
Also know as the Law of Conservation of Energy, it states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It may
change from one form to another, but the energy in a closed system
remains constant.

Second Law:
When energy is transferred, there will be less energy available at the
end of the transfer process than at the beginning (no reaction is 100% efficient). Due to entropy, which
is the measure of disorder in a closed system, all of the available
energy will not be useful to the organism because some amount of energy in a reaction is
always lost to heat. A system can never convert all of its energy to
working energy & entropy almost always increases as energy
is transferred. *This makes both perpetual motion machines & time traveling impossible.Third Law:The entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches zero.

[ Order Out of Chaos ]

We live in a universe where the balance of random mutations is almost
perfectly tuned for life on Earth. Randomness, when given time, is able to lead to that which is nearly
certain. Randomness also seems to imply a lack of intentionality or
purposefulness. After all, you might hope for an ace when drawing from a deck of cards, but it's impossible to actually choose one on purpose. If that was at all possible then there would undoubtedly be a handful of gifted card professionals around the world currently being suffocated by the vast amount of money they've earned. The outcome is indeterminate, but not necessarily purposeless. Indeterminacy simply means the result cannot be predicted from the outset. Human beings are genetically predisposed to find meaning & purpose in all facets of life so I'm fairly confident that some type of arbitrary purpose would be claimed if one felt an intense desire to do so.

- Draw some random points
on a piece of paper and join them up to make a random polygon. Find all
the midpoints and connect them up to give a new shape. Rrepeat. Order out of chaos.

- Viruses are simply molecules that randomly self-assemble after bouncing around on the inside of a cell. Proteins randomly align & self replicate at different rates in the body because the process itself has no order. It simply takes time for it to happen. In less than 30 seconds, you can watch a jumbled mess of proteins become a beautifully ordered structure...all out of chaos

“Chaos is what we've lost touch with. This is why it is given a bad
name. It is feared by the dominant archetype of our world, which is Ego,
which clenches because its existence is defined in terms of control.” - Terrence McKenna

Call me stupid, but I have absolutely no idea how anyone in their right mind could infer that "chaos cannot produce order" based on the descriptions found in these laws. If anything, these laws point to the fact that sometimes chaos is a necessity in order to achieve balance. The problem with people who aren't very good at understanding scientific principles is that they unintentionally spread misinformation to people who haven't taken the time to learn things for themselves. In turn, the wrong information is readily accepted as truth by those who lack a solid education & thus the lie is perpetuated. One of my professors once said to the class, "Don't take my word for it. Study it for yourself & draw your own conclusions. If your mother tells you that she loves you - even if you genuinely believe it to be true - you should probably still check it out.".

Fallacies Galore

It's true that random parts in a junkyard being hit by a tornado will more than likely never be able to assemble into a Lamborghini. However, this type of example is comparing apples to oranges. You can't reasonably expect inanimate objects to behave in the same way as biological life or elementary particles. Despite how overly clever of an analogy you might think it is, the universe just doesn't work that way. Sorry, pal. Try again.I'm sorry that Mr. Feuerstein can't possibly fathom a universe in which biological life is created due to a series of "accidents", but I certainly can & it's intellectually dishonest to completely rule out the possibility altogether. He may be right. Maybe there is some all-powerful entity who created everything. Perhaps it's even a purple giraffe who shits pure gold & pisses moonshine. How the hell should I know? Black holes could just be God's cosmic version of a self-guided vacuum cleaner & providing Earth with a source of light that also causes cancer could just be a funny joke. Must have been a boring Thursday (Biblical scholar humor). It's perfectly fine if you decide to adopt these types of ideas as truth, but don't think you're going to persuade me into believing it too if all you're going to throw at me is garbage like, "I've experienced him" or "I've seen his miracles in action.". An easier & more profound way to experience the "feeling" of God is to drop a few hits of acid & stare into the night sky for 6 hours. You may not unlock any secrets about the origin of life, but least you'll have an awesome time trying.

The word "universe" means "one single spoken statement"?!?!? Thanks so much for taking the time to completely redefine a word that was intended to mean no such thing. I'm not entirely sure whether Joshua is pulling arbitrary definitions out of his ass because he assumes everyone who listens to him speak is retarded or he's just cognitively inclined to latch onto the patently absurd. First of all, a simple Google search for the etymology of the word universe crushes this argument in less than 5 seconds. The Latin form of the word is universum or universus, NOTuniverse.

(This obviously means that the band One Direction is the culmination of universal excellence)

That was fun. Now let me try your last name:

feuer = Fire (German)stein = stone (German)firestone = stone that can withstand fire and great heat, used especially for lining furnaces and ovens.

Looks like I've found your true calling...keeping my food warm.

Secondly, it was thought that the universe consisted of only the Milky Way at the time the term was coined. Human knowledge of the cosmos at that point & time was primitive, to say the very least. For all we know, it may not even be the correct paradigm (see: Multiverse Theory). Seriously, dude...your homemade definition is utter nonsense. I like red meat. Go toss that word salad at someone else.

I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone considers scientific theories such as speciation by natural selection or The Big Bang Theory to be false ideas straight from the pits of Hell, yet, they can turn right around & claim that God willed everything into existence by using magic. Am I missing something here? Does this actually make sense to anyone else? You can believe in your fairy tales all you want, but don't campaign to have it taught as part of school science curriculum, stop redefining words just to match your worldview & quit publicly bastardizing explanations of the natural world around us on social media sites simply because you don't have the mental capacity to comprehend the material you're looking at. I don't even know you & I already despise you with a passion after watching only 4 minutes & 48 seconds of your existence. Your mother may love you, but I'll be damned if she doesn't have to put a lot of effort into it.

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

I am a white male who lives in central Alabama. Since there are no specific calendar days set aside to celebrate being either white or male this apparently means that roughly 336 days out of the year are dedicated solely to my ethnicity and/or gender by default. What a load of horse shit.

The feminist movement is chock-full of self-righteous characters who think that burning their bras in public or walking around naked as the day they were born is somehow empowering to their gender. I'm actually bare ass at this very moment, burning a pair of my boxers just to see what all the fuss is about. It does feel quite liberating so perhaps these clever women are onto something special after all. If a person has good social skills & makes it a pleasure to be in their company then there's absolutely no desire for them to play victim all the time. This whole "it's not fair" attitude is just pathetic. The objectification of women by men is more often than not the result of interactions with vain, self-indulgent bitches who think that the world owes them something simply because they have a nice rack & the lining of their uterus sheds once every thirty days. Any misogynistic attitude falls by the wayside whenever people view others as a valuable asset to their life. Try learning a skill that makes you a quintessential member of society instead of complaining about how nobody treats you fairly. There are plenty of successful women in the world who have risen through societal ranks strictly because of their intelligence & prowess.

Religions around the world have always played an integral role in the oppression of the the female gender, yet, I see so many devout women incessantly yammering about equality. A person can't honestly be a feminist & a Christian or Muslim at the same time. Pick a side & stay there. I don't need someone else - especially a scientifically illiterate person from a different era & culture - to explain to me what gender roles entail. If your particular religion labels women as submissive property rather than actual people then your god is doing it wrong. Period.

The terms feminism & menimism are beyond unnecessary. There's already a better, non-exclusionary word that describes an all-encompassing notion of equality. It's called humanism. Unlike feminists, humanists fight for the equal rights of all people regardless of their gender. It's inarguably a much more selfless act to be outspoken about the fairness & civility toward all people rather than just one specific group. Feminism is more about a singular need to feel special than anything else. Find another way to be special & stop ranting about how everyone with a penis is somehow conspiring against you. It's human nature to feel as if you're being oppressed at one time or another, regardless if you actually are or not. People who seize every opportunity to become better & kick oppression in the mouth are the ones who will ultimately come out on top in the end. Start changing the way others view you as a human being & stop jumping on all the trending social media hashtag bandwagons at the first sign of adversity. You know why I never worry about being discriminated against for things like my age, lack of formal education & living in the redneck capital of America? Because I laugh at & welcome the challenge. I kick it in the mouth.

I don't automatically respect a person based on the color of their skin nor how anatomically equipt they are to squeeze a baby out; I respect people on merit alone. I'm proud of being many things in life, but my skin pigment & the fact that I have a penis are nowhere to be found on that list. It should be downright depressing to have more pride in uncontrollable genetic traits rather than life accomplishments. Should I also be overly proud to possess an opposable thumb & devise a campaign to rub it in the face of every other animal who doesn't? We get it already...you have a vagina. Good for you. Now get back in the kitchen & cook me a fucking steak.